Lost History

Summary

Steven B. Krivit's Explorations in Nuclear Research three-book series (Hacking the Atom, Fusion Fiasco, Lost History) describes the emergence of a new field of science, one that bridges chemistry and physics. The books give readers an understanding of low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research and its history and provide a rare behind-the-scenes look at the players and personalities involved.

Lost History, written for scientists and science historians, covers the period from 1912 to 1927, and explores the story of forgotten chemical transmutation research, a precursor to modern low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) research. The book tells the story of century-old research that has been absent from the scientific dialogue for a hundred years — research that is surprisingly similar to events in the modern era.

In the formative years of atomic science in the early 20th century, at the same time that Niels Bohr introduced his model of the atom, and when nuclear science belonged to chemists and physicists alike, some scientists reported inexplicable experimental evidence of elemental transmutations. Papers were published in the top scientific journals of the day, including Physical Review, Science and Nature. Prominent scientists around the world participated in the research. The research was reported in popular newspapers and magazines, such as the New York Times and Scientific American. The book relies heavily on published journal papers.

The experiments, using relatively simple, low-energy benchtop apparatus, did not use radioactive sources, so the results defied prevailing theory. This, coupled with the fact that the experiments were not easily repeated, caused most scientists by 1930 to dismiss the entire body of research as a mistake.

This history of research was omitted from historical references — until now. With the benefit of hindsight, and in light of modern low-energy nuclear research (LENR) and theory, this lost history, after a 60-year hiatus, is told here for the first time. Lost History is the first book that provides critical analyses of the original published scientific papers of the transmutation experiments performed between 1912 and 1927. This book reveals the fascinating story of these experiments and provides significant insights about our understanding of the history of physics, chemistry and nuclear science.

Lost History chronicles the following events that have been either forgotten or misreported:• From 1912 to 1914, several independent researchers detected the production of noble gases: helium-4, neon, argon, and an as-yet-unidentified element of mass-3, which we now identify as tritium. Two of these researchers were Nobel laureates.• In 1922, two chemists at the University of Chicago created helium using the exploding electrical conductor method.• In 1924, a German scientist accidentally found gold and possibly platinum in the residue of mercury vapor lamps that he had been using for photography.• In 1925, a prominent Japanese scientist reported the production of gold and another metal that was later identified as platinum.• In 1926, two German chemists pumped hydrogen gas into a chamber with finely divided palladium powder and reported the transmutation of hydrogen into helium. One of them later tried to dismiss the results, but he was never able to completely explain the data as a mistake.• Contrary to nearly all accounts that credit Ernest Rutherford with the first nuclear transmutation — of nitrogen to oxygen — the credit belongs to a researcher who was working under Rutherford.

Related Articles

Book Preview

Lost History - Steven B. Krivit

Reviews

Series

Introduction

In the early 20th century, when fundamental discoveries and breakthroughs were made in physics and chemistry, a parallel track of scientific exploration and discovery took place between 1912 and 1927 that has been lost and forgotten — until now.

Scientists performing experiments in defiance of prevailing theory at the time used relatively simple benchtop apparatus that transmuted elements without using a radioactive source. In some cases, they produced noble gases and, in other cases, precious metals.

At the time, critics gave a variety of reasons to dismiss the claimed results as erroneous. However, for most of the experiments, no critics identified a specific error of protocol, a mistake in the data analysis, or an unstated assumption by the researchers who reported these transmutations.

Historians wrote off these experimental results primarily because some scientists failed in their replication attempts. Secondarily, historians have assumed that critics' guesses about the presumed faults were correct. (Mellor, 1923)

Neither the interpretation of the failed replication attempts nor the guesses about the errors were correct. This is the first book that provides critical analyses of the original published scientific papers of the transmutation experiments performed between 1912 and 1927.

The chapters in this book reveal the story of these experiments and provide significant insights about our understanding of the history of physics, chemistry and nuclear science.

History as We Know It

The lost history period took place between two well-known eras of nuclear research. Preceding the lost history, in the first decade of the 20th century, scientists learned a great deal about atomic reactions induced by alpha particles emitted from passively decaying radioactive elements. After the lost history period, in the 1930s, scientists began using devices to accelerate ions and induce nuclear disintegrations with higher energies and greater control.

The research during both well-known eras was generally consistent with scientists' theoretical knowledge at the time. They understood that the emissions from alpha particles, from naturally decaying radioactive elements or from particle accelerators carried sufficient energy to induce nuclear reactions.

Alchemy?

On the other hand, the transmutation experiments reported between 1912 and 1927 used no radioactive sources or particle accelerators. Instead, the experiments used a variety of relatively low-energy stimuli.

The results made no sense according to theory at the time, and the research looked suspiciously like alchemy, an ancient craft that had no place in respectable science.

At the time, this research was widely known both in scientific circles and among the general public, despite its association with alchemy. Although many scientists who heard about the work doubted that it was real, journals nevertheless published scientific papers on the research, and newspapers eagerly informed the public.

The work was reported in popular media, such as the New York Times and Scientific American. Scientific papers were published in the top professional journals of the day, including Physical Review and Nature. Prominent scientists in the U.S., Europe, and Japan and even Nobel Prize winners were active in the research.

By the 1930s, the entire body of research and results was dismissed as false and was left out of history books for nearly a century.

This book scrutinizes the most significant claims and counterclaims made during this lost history. Research for this book included the analysis of more than 140 original scientific papers and more than 200 news articles from the first three decades of the 20th century.

Three Books

This is the third book in a three-book series. Each book stands alone, and covers a distinct period of scientific exploration. They are being published in reverse-chronological order.

The 1912-1927 era of transmutation research is best understood with the insights from the experimental research discussed in Vol. 1, Hacking the Atom.

The sources used in this book are primarily published scientific papers. For this reason, this book is geared toward a more technical and academic audience than the other two books in this series. Here are some highlights from this book:

Anomalous Production of Noble Gases

From 1912 to 1914, several independent researchers detected the production of the gases helium-4, neon, argon, and an as-yet-unidentified element of mass-3, which we now identify as tritium. Two of these researchers were Nobel laureates.

Wendt and Irion's Synthesis of Helium

In 1922, two chemists at the University of Chicago, Gerald L. Wendt and Clarence E. Irion, synthesized helium using the exploding electrical conductor method. Despite doubts and criticism, no one unambiguously identified any error in their 21 successful experiments.

Nuclear evidence from exploding electrical conductor experiments was confirmed 80 years later by researchers at the Kurchatov Institute in Russia. (Urutskoev, 2002)

Anomalous Production of Gold, Platinum, and Thallium

In 1924, a German scientist accidently found trace amounts of gold and possibly platinum in the residue of mercury vapor lamps that he had been using for photography. A year later, scientists in Amsterdam repeated a similar experiment, but starting with lead, and observed the production of mercury and the rare element thallium. The same year, a prominent Japanese scientist, in a different kind of experiment, reported observing the production of gold and something that had the appearance of platinum. Newspapers reported that he toured the world showing people the gold he had made in the laboratory. No reports of challenges to his claim appear to exist, at least in English-language references.

Paneth and Peters' Hydrogen-to-Helium Transmutation

In 1926, German chemists Friedrich Adolf (Fritz) Paneth and Kurt Gustav Karl Peters pumped hydrogen gas into a chamber with finely divided palladium powder and reported the transmutation of hydrogen into helium. Paneth was at first very proud of his and Peters' achievement. Paneth claimed that they were the first scientists to perform a nuclear transmutation. He dismissed the earlier 1912-1914 transmutation reports without thoroughly examining them and without clearly identifying any errors.

A year later, Paneth did an about-face: He worked hard to find explanations to dismiss his and Peters' helium-production claims. He was unable to completely explain away their results.

Correction to a Milestone in Scientific History

While doing research on this early transmutation era, I came across facts that contradict the depiction of an important milestone in scientific history. World-famous physicist Ernest Rutherford has been credited incorrectly with the first nuclear transmutation. Some historians, even Rutherford scholars, call it his greatest achievement.

Not only was he preceded by other researchers in the 1912-1914 era, but also the experiment that has been attributed to him, transmuting nitrogen to oxygen, was in fact performed by Patrick Maynard Stewart Blackett, a research fellow who was working under Rutherford.

All but a few historians — and all known current Internet references as of 2015 — incorrectly credit this discovery to Rutherford.

Preparation for a Paradigm Shift

The impetus for my inquiry into this lost history came from my curiosity about the 1989 cold fusion claim by two electrochemists, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, at the University of Utah. The chemists observed valid anomalous experimental phenomena but made an incorrect interpretation of the data, claiming it was produced by a fusion reaction.

There is no experimental evidence to support the claim of cold fusion; nor is there a viable theory to explain it as fusion, were supportive experimental data to exist.

There is, however, an abundance of experimental evidence as well as a non-fusion theory that offers a viable explanation for the phenomena. Electroweak interactions appear to be the missing link to understanding these mysterious reactions.

Hacking the Atom: Explorations in Nuclear Research, Vol. 1 discusses the research that took place in the field from 1990 to 2015, as well as the non-fusion theory.

With the benefit of hindsight, and in light of modern research and theory, this lost history takes on new meaning and a new place in the history of science. It is also a remarkable precursor to the low-energy nuclear research (LENR) that began in the 1980s.

In this latter era, researchers again reported a wide variety of nuclear transmutations at low energies, including noble gases and precious elements. The data were taken with modern electron microscopy in recognized laboratories around the world.

This 100-year continuum reveals the emergence of a new field of science that belongs to neither physics nor chemistry but is a hybrid of the two.

Welcome to the Journey

I have independently investigated and reported on this subject for 16 years. I invite scientists and non-scientists alike to join me on this journey of scientific exploration and discovery. It is my pleasure to share this adventure with you now.

Steven B. Krivit

San Rafael, California

Sept. 1, 2016

Portion of painting of alchemist by Joseph Wright of Derby (1771)

CHAPTER 1

Deceit, Falsehood, and Delusion

Elemental Transmutation Research Is Dismissed As Fraud, Folly, and Failure

Our journey begins in the early 20th century. Our scribe is Joseph William Mellor, a ceramic chemist who edited encyclopedic compendiums of scientific research in organic and inorganic chemistry.

His foremost legacy is preserved in a 16-volume set of textbooks. The series is called A Comprehensive Treatise on Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry. Most volumes are a thousand pages. There is no question as to the breadth and depth of Mellor's knowledge of chemistry.

In his Volume 4, originally printed in 1923 and reprinted in later years, Mellor discussed the transmutation claims made between 1912 and 1927. Like nearly all scientists of his day, Mellor viewed the transmutation claims as alchemy, which he disdained:

J.J. Pontanus (1520) complained that after traveling through many countries to examine the claims of the adepts, he found many deceivers, but no true philosophers; and N. Lemery, that they professed an art the beginning of which was deceit, the progress of which was falsehood, and the end beggary.

Alchemy thus fell into disrepute, for it seemed as if its claims could be established only by chicanery and fraud. ... At one period, however, the majority of alchemists did seek to make gold cheaply with the sole object of gaining untold wealth. Failure or delusion was inevitable. Accordingly, the alchemist often misrepresented the truth and that degenerated into a charlatan and imposter, pretending, with vulgar frauds, that he had succeeded. (Mellor, 1923, 148)

Mellor summarized most of the significant transmutation claims between 1912 and 1923:

The alchemist's dream of transmutation is very little nearer realization today than it was a thousand years ago, for no one has yet really succeeded in transmuting one chemical element into another other than by speculative argument. There is no unimpeachable evidence of a single transmutation of one element into another. ...

J. J. Thomson has stated that all his efforts to decompose atoms by cathode rays or positive rays have failed to produce any conclusive evidence of a transformation. True enough, a few radioactive elements — radium, actinium, polonium, uranium, and thorium — seem to have been discovered in nature, and they are usually stated to be changing spontaneously from one elemental form to another; but no process known to man is able to accelerate or retard, stop or start the metamorphosis. No element has yet been broken down into a simpler substance by a process controllable by man. In the words of Francis Bacon, natura enim non nisi parendo I vincitur — nature to be conquered must be obeyed.

The alleged transmutation of copper into lithium and sodium by A.T. Cameron and W. Ramsay has been denied by M.S. Curie and E. Gleditsch and by E.P. Perman — the lithium and sodium were derived from the vessels used in the work; the production of neon from radium emanation by W. Ramsay, and W. Ramsay and A.T. Cameron has been denied by E. Rutherford and T. Royds — the neon was derived from the air which had not been excluded from the apparatus; and the formation of carbon dioxide by the action of radium emanations on solution of thorium and zirconium by W. Ramsay and F.L. Usher has been called in question by E. Rutherford — the carbon appears to have been derived from the grease used in lubricating the stopcocks.

The alleged transmutation of hydrogen into neon, by W. Ramsay, J.N. Collie and H.S. Patterson, and I. Masson, by the action of a stream of cathode rays on hydrogen is considered by J.J. Thomson to be a mal-inference, since the neon is thought to be derived from that originally occluded by the electrodes, or glass vessel, and which is expelled by the bombardment of the cathode rays, but which cannot be removed by the mere application of heat. R.J. Strutt, T.R. Merton, A.C.G. Egerton, and A. Piutti and E. Cardoso could not verify the alleged conversion of hydrogen into neon. (Mellor, 1923, 149-150)

Mellor and other scientists in 1923 knew that changes to atomic nuclei required high energies:

It has been pointed out that the formation of, say, gold from a metal atomically lighter, say tin, would require the expenditure of so much energy that even if the transformation were accomplished, it could not be a successful commercial process for the production of gold. On the other hand, the formation of gold from an atomically heavier metal, say lead, would liberate such an enormous amount of energy that the gold would be but an insignificant by-product, for the energy liberated during the process would have an enormously greater value than the metal. (Mellor, 1923, 150)

Mellor and his contemporaries knew that alpha particles randomly emitted from passively decaying radioactive elements could provide the required energy to cause atomic disintegrations. But not until 1925 did physicists observe the first man-made, alpha-induced elemental transmutation. In 1932, physicists used devices to accelerate ions and induce nuclear disintegrations, and thereafter, transmutations by high-energy physics were easily accepted as bona fide scientific phenomena.

Mellor's perspective was limited by the prevailing theoretical understanding of atomic science. It would take 82 years for two theorists, Allan Widom (Northeastern University) and Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC), to propose a theory based on electroweak interactions that offered a feasible explanation of the then-inexplicable phenomena. (See the book Hacking the Atom: Explorations in Nuclear Research, Vol. 1 for more information.)

Disbelief of the reported results was understandable in 1923, and denial of the experimental results was far more logical than acceptance. It made more sense at the time to deny the data, however empirically obtained, by making guesses or assuming there had been unidentified errors, as Mellor and other scientists did.

It made more sense to them to dismiss the claims by mentioning that other scientists could not verify the claims when attempting a replication.

Mellor's quote, displayed in the epigraph and shown here, becomes ever more useful in understanding why these good experiments were dismissed by even the most knowledgeable scientists:

Belief in the simplicity of nature is not logic but faith pure and simple. It is one of those insidious and dangerous tacit assumptions which often creep into scientific theories. Tacit assumptions are dangerous because they are usually made unconsciously, so that they appear to be self-evident truths, and prevent our harboring the shadow of a doubt of their insidious character. (Mellor, 1923, 1)

These transmutation experiments represented — and still represent — nothing less than a challenge to our assumptions about nature. These experiments show us that there is something new to learn in science. They remind us that nuclear physics is more than strong-force fission and fusion. They teach us that another of the four fundamental forces, weak interactions, heretofore with limited practical application, may portend new worlds of science and technology.

CHAPTER 2

Alchemy, the Precursor to Modern Science

Around the World, Mystics, Magicians and Madmen Defy Science Authorities

The well-known early period of atomic and nuclear science took place between 1895 and 1930. During the later part of this period, scientists were pursuing a parallel track of research that has, almost without exception, been omitted from today's accounts of science history. In order to provide a basic foundation for all readers, the first chapters (2-8) review the scientific developments during the earlier part of this period.

The birth of atomic (later known as nuclear) science took place around the turn of the 20th century, between 1895 and 1930. During the first three decades of the 20th century, there were no hard boundaries between chemists and physicists in the domain of atomic and nuclear research. At the time, they simply called the research radioactivity. The research was shared equally by both disciplines, as we will see in the coming chapters.

Physicists eventually explored and identified the nucleus and atomic science gave way to nuclear science. Physicists took the research under their wing, and in the mid-1930s, the research became known as nuclear physics. Starting in the 1930s, physicists navigated the new subatomic world more effectively than chemists by using the methods and tools of particle physics. When this shift occurred, chemists were no longer viewed, even by themselves, as equal players in nuclear research.

In the 1940s, when nuclear fission-based military and energy programs began, the term nuclear chemistry came into use to designate the chemistry-related aspects of that work. Nuclear chemistry was essential to aspects of the atomic bomb program and subsequent research on transuranic elements. Around this time, nuclear chemists typically worked at laboratories where nuclear physicists were working with particle accelerators or nuclear reactors.

These devices did not exist in the first three decades of the 20th century; chemists, as well as physicists, performing atomic research at that time worked with much simpler tools and techniques.

Until the late 1920s, before the field of radioactivity (or atomic science) became known as nuclear physics, physicists and chemists routinely worked much more closely than they do today. In a few short years during and after the turn of the century, chemists and physicists worked collaboratively and made a series of monumental discoveries in rapid succession, each one building on the previous.

Yet the new world of atomic science did not arrive without the fear of the return of alchemy coming along with it, a subject which scientists reviled. Long before chemistry and nuclear physics were recognized, alchemy was often regarded as the domain of mystics, magicians and perhaps a few madmen.

According to Adam McLean, a historian of alchemy, there are three possible sources for the origin of the term. The first is from ancient Egyptian, transmitted through the Arabic word al-khem, based on the Egyptian hieroglyphics. The other derivations are from Greek words.

Alchemy Throughout History

Alchemy goes back several thousand years and has its roots in Egypt, India and China. Robert Place gives a good description of alchemy in his book Magic and Alchemy: Mysteries, Legends, and Unexplained Phenomena:

Alchemy is as confusing a subject as magic. If asked to give a meaning for the word, ancient alchemists would have given as many definitions as there were alchemists. One thing that they could all agree on, however, was that the central purpose of alchemy is transmutation. Transmutation is an event in which one substance is changed into another. Alchemists believed that transmutation was possible, and they made it the main focus of their work. The most famous example is their belief that they could change lead, an inexpensive metal, into gold, one of the most valuable [metals].

Alchemists hoped to accomplish transmutation through the interaction of a magical catalyst called the Philosopher's Stone. The creation of [what they called] the Philosopher's Stone, therefore, became the central purpose for the great work of all alchemists. The Philosopher's Stone was said to be a mystical substance: a stone that is not a stone. It could cure any illness, prolong life indefinitely, and transform any metal into its highest state. Some alchemical texts focus on creating the stone through lab work, and these were the precursors of modern medicine and chemistry. Others, however, focus on alchemy as an internal mystical process that takes place in the mind of the alchemist. (Place, 2009, 71-73)

Alchemists knew how to separate metals from ore and make alloys of metals. They used a variety of other techniques including brewing, dyeing, gilding, perfume-making, making chemicals and reciting magic rituals for the dead. McLean lists on his Alchemy Web Site (alchemywebsite.com) 1,179 authors of 2,810 books written on alchemy before the year 1800. McLean says that, by the 15th century, 300 texts from China were closely related to the various alchemical traditions.

According to Place, Western alchemy had its roots in Egypt and dealt primarily with metals. Some ancient Greeks also developed the alchemical theories based on certain fundamental aspects of nature: attraction and repulsion, love and hate, and the four elements, earth, fire, air, and water. The Greek philosophies were influenced by Egyptian mystical religion and magic, and scholars have found ancient alchemical manuscripts written on papyrus from Alexandria, Egypt, several hundred years B.C.E.

Table of alchemical tradition. Based on drawing by F. Sherwood Taylor in The Alchemist, Founders of Modern Chemistry (1949)

Alchemy in Europe

Alchemy entered Europe in the 12th century, according to Place. The Knights Templar were thought to be among the first Westerners to be acquainted with alchemy. During the Crusades, the Knights Templar had adopted teachings from a mystical pagan sect in the Islamic world. A few centuries later, when the Islamic empire in Spain lost territory to Christian rulers, scholars translated Arabic texts into Latin, and this propelled knowledge of alchemy to the rest of Europe. Soon, the alchemical influence permeated Europe, at first through Sicily, Spain and southern France.

When alchemy reached central Europe, it found its home in the castles of Europe's kings and queens. Records indicate that alchemists served their masters and provided them with newly made gold to line their masters' coffers, and when the alchemists failed, death was a common punishment.

Fritz Paneth, a German chemist who performed transmutation experiments in the 1920s, gave a fascinating lecture at Cornell University on October 4, 1926, titled Ancient and Modern Alchemy, that illuminates this history. The journal Science published his lecture later that month. Paneth found records suggesting that actual transactions based on manufactured gold took place, but on balance, there was very little evidence to support the legitimacy of the get-rich-quick scheme. Paneth believed the royal interest was based on wishful thinking, greed and the need for hard currency for wars and other wealth-consuming projects. Paneth's study provides a fascinating insight into history. Here is an excerpt:

Official state papers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries make it clear that one of the important problems confronting a monarch or elector in Central Europe was to procure for his country an able alchemist who was expected to improve the financial status of the realm by transmuting base metals into valuable gold. It naturally followed that the alchemist was highly favored at court — so long as belief in his ability lasted. He was honored by the friendship of his sovereign and sometimes by elevation to nobility, and more than one of the crowned protectors of alchemy assisted personally in the experiments, so that he might convince himself of the correctness of the achievements of his alchemistic employee.

The Emperor Rudolph II is reported to have [personally] worked with his alchemists. A visitor to the Hradshin, the beautiful castle of Prague, the residence of the emperor, may even today see the five or six little houses, with disproportionately large fireplaces, which were built, by Rudolph's command, close to his own palace and which were used by his goldcooks. Rudolph appointed to a high position in his court Tycho Brahe, who, although usually referred to in the history of science as an astronomer, was perhaps chosen by Rudolph because he was also of high repute as an alchemist. This is evidenced by the fact that the emperor provided him not only with an observatory but also with a laboratory for his chemical experiments.

In a more practical way, Henry VI of England supported alchemistical experiments. To aid in the payment of the debts of the state, he recommended to all noblemen, scholars and theologians the study of alchemy, and he conferred upon a company the privilege of making gold from base metals. This firm produced a metal (probably an alloy of copper and mercury) which had the appearance of gold, and from this, coins were stamped. History does not record whether King Henry believed that transmutation had actually been accomplished, but the careful Scotch were evidently skeptical, for the Scotch Parliament issued an order that this English gold should not be allowed to enter any of their ports or to cross their frontier.

The example given by the mightiest rulers of the time was imitated on a more modest scale by several of the smaller princes of Europe. Historical records tell us of one [person] who tried to obtain a first-class alchemist from his neighbor, first by kindness and then by force; of another prince who loaned his alchemist to another court for a definite period; and of treaties between two states in which alchemists were regarded as mere chattels. Many of the rulers of that time were such firm believers in alchemistical doctrines that a lawyer of the period advocated making disbelief in these theories a crimen laesae majestatis. But although the lords of the realms generously supported the experiments of their alchemists, the financial returns never seemed to equal the disbursements. [Readers] repeatedly find in the records that, at the end of the research, the sovereign lost his temper and that the alchemist, when hard-pressed to show his product of manufactured gold, was usually well-satisfied if he succeeded in escaping from the clutches of his former benefactor. If he failed to do so, he was severely punished and generally put to death. Showing the cruel humor of the times, it was a frequent joke to gild with [gold] tinsel the [hanging] gibbet on which the alchemist was to meet his end.

We read of a great number of such executions and of innumerable failures of experiments. The successful transmutation of some cheap material into gold was very seldom reported, and in every case, the transmutation, for some reason or other, could not be repeated: Either the alchemist had disappeared, or the stock of the Philosophers' Stone, the miraculous powder which alone enabled him to accomplish the great work, had been exhausted. The value of the gold that he claimed to have produced always amounted to a very small fraction of the money that had been spent upon him and his experiments. (Paneth, 1926, 410)

In his Cornell lecture in 1926, Paneth told the audience that the ancient efforts at transmutation were futile. (Cornell Daily Sun, 1926) He gave the impression that all attempts at ancient alchemy had failed. He also implied that attempts to perform elemental transmutations in the previous two decades had all failed. Meanwhile, around this time, Paneth and his colleague Kurt Peters, published papers claiming to have accomplished the very first successful elemental transmutation.

Greed

By the 17th century, Place wrote, interest in alchemy had peaked, and an unprecedented quantity of enigmatically illustrated alchemical books was published. One of the more fascinating among these was a book with no text, just pictures. The books covered a wide variety of topics including the use of non-herbal medicines and spiritual transformation.

Paracelsus, born Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim (1493-1541), Place wrote, was regarded as one of the greatest alchemists as well as the founder of modern medicine. A Swiss-German, he was also a physician, botanist, astrologer, and occultist. The spiritual quest had always been a part of alchemy from ancient times, but after Paracelsus, spirituality became more important to alchemists, as Place explained.

These alchemists wanted to separate themselves from those [people] who were interested in alchemy only as a means to wealth. Solely materialistic alchemists were called puffers because of their impatient use of the bellows to keep the fire hot to speed up the process.

Besides puffers, con men sought riches and fame through fraudulent claims of the successful transformation of base metal into gold, accomplished by trickery. These charlatans caused alchemy to fall into disrepute. In the 18th century, fraud [along with] the discrediting of alchemy's underlying theories by scientific discoveries caused alchemy to be reduced to a pseudoscience. (Place, 2009, 82)

The word puffery is commonly used to this day to denote marketing exaggeration. Now we know its origin!

Painting by Adrian van Ostade (1610-85), The Alchemists, 1757, depicting an alchemist puffing his fire with a bellows.

Alchemy in India

The most unusual accounts of alchemy I've found reportedly took place in 20th century India, in Hindu temples. One of the most respected authorities on Indian alchemy was Vaidya Bhagwan Dash (1934-2015), author of Alchemy and Metallic Medicines in Ayurveda, published in 1986. Dash was an ayurvedic physician and scholar and author of more than 80 books on Ayurveda and Tibetan medicine as well as a Sanskrit scholar. Besides having other responsibilities, he was the deputy adviser in Ayurveda to the government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and was a consultant in traditional medicine for the World Health Organization.

Among other lesser-known events, two prominent alchemical events took place in two prominent temples in India. They were recorded in Sanskrit inscriptions chiseled in marble plaques on pillars in the temples, built in the early 20th century by the Birla family, renowned Indian industrialists.